CiteScore:
3.42ℹCiteScore:2017: 3.420CiteScore measures the average citations received per document published in this title. CiteScore values are based on citation counts in a given year (e.g. 2015) to documents published in three previous calendar years (e.g. 2012 – 14), divided by the number of documents in these three previous years (e.g. 2012 – 14).

Impact Factor:
3.129ℹImpact Factor:2017: 3.129The Impact Factor measures the average number of citations received in a particular year by papers published in the journal during the two preceding years.
2018 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2019)

5-Year Impact Factor:
3.682ℹFive-Year Impact Factor:2017: 3.682To calculate the five year Impact Factor, citations are counted in 2017 to the previous five years and divided by the source items published in the previous five years.
2018 Journal Citation Reports (Clarivate Analytics, 2019)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):
1.693ℹSource Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP):2017: 1.693SNIP measures contextual citation impact by weighting citations based on the total number of citations in a subject field.

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR):
1.380ℹSCImago Journal Rank (SJR):2017: 1.380SJR is a prestige metric based on the idea that not all citations are the same. SJR uses a similar algorithm as the Google page rank; it provides a quantitative and a qualitative measure of the journal’s impact.

Author StatsℹAuthor Stats:Publishing your article with us has many benefits, such as having access to a personal dashboard: citation and usage data on your publications in one place. This free service is available to anyone who has published and whose publication is in Scopus.

With the development of social media, crowdfunding has emerged as a new funding method for entrepreneurial projects where the investors, mainly constituted by ordinary citizens, may support an idea/ideal and contribute to its realization. According to Gerber and Hui (2013), crowdfunding fundamentally affects how our economic and social system functions as it changes how, why, and which products and services are brought into existence.

Crowdfunding is enthusiastically discussed in the media as an alternative means to finance sustainability-oriented ventures and clean production technologies (e.g. Park, 2012; Harte, 2013; Thorpe, 2014), therefore overcoming the lack of funding which is the central obstacle to sustainable development (Ortas et al., 2013).

Sustainability-oriented ventures are especially constrained in the early “seed funding” stage as their social and environmental goals cause them to be perceived as less attractive investments compared to traditional entrepreneurial ventures focused on marked needs and economic returns (Choi and Gray, 2008).

However, academic contributions on the role of crowdfunding (and in general of social media, see e.g. Hjnes and Wilson, 2016) in moving towards a sustainable society are still rare (Zeco et al., 2014). They are mainly conceptual and, like most studies on crowdfunding, lack empirical evidence on the actual content of campaigns (Manning and Bejarano, 2016). As noted by Nielsen and Reisch (2016), current literature builds primarily on correlational research and it subsequently remains arguably difficult to detangle cause and effect relationships.

Authors claiming potential for crowdfunding in the context of sustainability essentially rely on literature affirming that crowd investors’ motivations are different from those of traditional financial investors (e.g Linderberg and Steg, 2007; Aitamurto, 2011; Lehner, 2013). As Lehner (2013, 2) states, “crowd investors typically do not look much at collaterals or business plans, but at the ideas and core values of the firm” and he adds that crowd therefore will select the social ideas it deems worthy and needed. In other words, crowd investors participate because non-materials rewards such as the desire to support specific causes that may be close to their own hearts or the desire to help others (Gerber and Hui, 2013; Belleflamme et al., 2014; Lehner and Nicholls, 2014; Allison et al., 2015). They are moved by altruistic or normative reasons i.e. reasons which meet their (or their community) moral or ethical norms (Linderberg and Steg, 2007).

Bartenberger and Leitner (2013, 81) emphasize the huge potential of crowdfunding “to contribute to forms of economic growth that also address social and environmental needs”. On the same line, Goodman and Polycarpou (2013) affirm that crowdfunding “represents a potentially revolutionary application of social networking with direct consequences for sustainability”. Arcese et al. (2015), specifically focusing on food, report a successful crowdfunding campaign -Back to the root (BTTR) - as an exemplificative case that shows how much crowd cares about sustainable products. From the campaign BTTR raised 248,873$ out of a goal of 100,000$, that means they raised more the double of what they initially asked. Specifically focusing on environmental sustainability, Vasileiadou et al. (2015) indicate crowdfunding as an organizational innovation with the potential to develop and scale up sustainability solutions. Bonzanini et al. (2015) as well as Lam and Law (2016) claim that crowdfunding is an interesting source of capital for green initiatives because it combines the opportunity of a profit with the desire to contribute to climate action initiatives.

Some conceptual and empirical works even go beyond, suggesting a positive relationship between environmental or sustainability orientation and the likelihood of success of crowdfunding projects (e.g. Bartenberger and Leitner, 2013; Hemer, 2011; Lehner, 2013; Vasileiadou et al., 2015, Calic and Mosakowxki, 2016).

Beyond these cases highlighting a positive connection between crowdfunding and sustainability, it is worth noting that a few contrasting voices also emerge such as Hörisch (2015) who does not observe in his investigation any positive connection between sustainability (also in this case environmental) and crowdfunding success. His results are in line with part of the crowdfunding literature claiming that crowd funders are likely to act similar to conventional financiers (see e.g. Moss et al., 2015) as they “evaluate the quality of the product, the team and the likelihood of success” (Mollick , 2014, 6). Therefore, this means that other elements than sustainability orientation are determinant for the projects’ funding success, such as, for example, prospect of financial return (Ordanini et al, 2011).

Time has come to provide researchers with more insights concerning the role of crowdfunding for sustainability, by further investigating the two sides of the crowdfunding coin. This requires, on the one hand, to investigate sustainable entrepreneurship (as defined by Schaltegger and Wagner, 2011), i.e. entrepreneurs’ attitudes/behaviours towards sustainability and the solutions that they suggest in their crowdfunding campaigns in order to addressing sustainability. On the other hand, this requires the analysis of sustainable citizenship (as defined by Micheletti and Stolle, 2012), i.e. of citizens’ attitudes/behaviours/concerns towards sustainability (e.g. Penna and Geels, 2012) and of the sustainable solutions that they decide to finance on crowdfunding platforms.

This Special Issue editors invite papers that examine crowdfunding phenomenon, employ original methodologies, and offer interesting empirical insights and theoretical contribution related to crowdfunding and sustainability. Possible topics include - but are not limited to - the following domains of inquiry:

How crowdfunding enacts more open, inclusive, and democratized product and service development

Opportunities and challenges related to crowdfunding as a source of financing for sustainability

The conditions under which crowdfunding creates sustainable business models

Crowdfunding as a socio technical innovation to advance society's sustainability

Sustainability oriented crowdfunding campaigns in different economic, cultural and political settings

Individual and relational factors, and their impact on crowdfunding performance

Differences and similarities of characteristics and motivations of sustainability-oriented crowdfunders

Both large-scale empirical research and case studies are encouraged. In empirical studies, research methodologies must be consistent with highest standards, and may include qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches, as well as preferably be based on novel and exclusive data. Please see the Technological Forecasting and Social Change editorial aims on the journal’s website.

Short bios of proponents

Marcel Bogers is Associate Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the Department of Food and Resource Economics, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen. His main research interests center on the design, organization and management of technology, innovation and entrepreneurship. In this context, he has studied issues such as open innovation, business models, family businesses, users as innovators, collaborative prototyping, improvisation, and university-industry relations. He has published numerous articles in international journal (e.g. Journal of Management, Journal of Product Innovation Management, California Management Review, MIT Sloan Management Review), sits on the Editorial Board of journals as Journal of Product Innovation Management and Creativity and Innovation Management, is co-editor of a number of special issues in journals as California Management Review and Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, and has presented papers and hosted a number of Professional Development Workshops (PDWs) at international conferences (e.g. Academy of Management, DRUID).

Silvano Cincotti is Full Professor at the University of Genoa (IT). His current research topics are agent-based macroeconomics, energy economics, finance and sustainable growth, corporate social responsibility. He is the author of more then 180 scientific articles and serves on the editorial boards of several international journals. His scientific activities have been carried on within more than 50 national and international project grants.

Kristian Roed Nielsen is a PhD-fellow at Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School. His research interests centering on areas linked to sustainable innovation, users as innovators, crowdfunding and consumer behavior. Within these topics he has published and presented a number of reports and peer-reviewed papers on the role of the end-user within sustainable innovation (e.g. Journal of Cleaner Production, Open and User Innovation Conference, Nordic Academy of Management Conference).

Stefania Testa is Associate Professor at the University of Genoa (IT). Her main research interests concern the area of innovation management, including themes such as the role of social media (including crowdunding) for innovation, the role of knowledge in innovation processes, and open innovation practices. Within these topics, she has published several articles in international journals (e.g. Economic Geography, Technovation, Information and Management, Organization and Management) and presented papers at international conferences.

Bartenberger, M., & Leitner, P. (2013). Crowdsourcing and Crowdfunding: Approaches to Foster Social Innovation. In Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference Web Based Communities and Social Media 2013 (pp. 81-85).

Hemer, J. (2011). A snapshot on crowdfunding. ISI, working paper, available at http://www.isi-lehre.de/isi-wGlobal/wGlobal/scripts/accessDocument.php?wAuthIdHtaccess=800364842&document=/isi-wAssets/docs/p/de/arbpap_unternehmen_region/ap_r2_2011.pdf&display=1&forceDownload=0 (accessed 1st September 2016)

Hörisch, J. (2015). Crowdfunding for environmental ventures: an empirical analysis of the influence of environmental orientation on the success of crowdfunding initiatives. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 636-645.

Hynes, N., & Wilson, J. (2016). I do it, but don't tell anyone! Personal values, personal and social norms: Can social media play a role in changing pro-environmental behaviours? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 111, 349-359.